> Creates a paradise garden where we all want to live
> Puts a serpent there to tempt us into getting in trouble
> Gives us free will so we can disobey his will and have independence
> Kicks us out and damns us forever while pretending like it wasn't his eventual plan from the start

What the fuck was his problem?????

Looking for someone who knows how to spoil me.

>>936455439 (OP)
He was a dick from day 1, and whoever invented him is an even bigger dick

>Humanity chooses the snake over God

*Legasp.png*

Mfw when choices have consequences

Then allows hundreds of religions to be created and says pick the right one or you're going to burn. Like, if he already knows who's going to he'll, then he created those souls knowing they were just going to be tortured for all eternity. Dick move

>>936455439 (OP)
Also,
>create humans without knowledge of right and wrong
>punishes them for doing something wrong
>knew it would happen but did it anyways

>>936455772
He not only knows, he chooses who goes to hell and who goes to heaven.

>>936455439 (OP)
Without free will, we cannot choose to be good. It's a necessary evil.
Have you never seen someone be punished for something you knew they were going to do? Because I work with kids and let me tell you, they know they'll get punished and still do shit they ought not to.

>>936458944
God is a complete faggot for even creating this shit world in the first place

>>936461867
The alternative would be nothingness, which has no capacity for goodness.
Or would you rather the world was not AS shit? But if He intervened, that would defeat the purpose of giving us free will and choice.
What would you prefer, so that I can understand your view better?

>>936462143
>The alternative would be nothingness, which has no capacity for goodness.
under what premise is that not a possibility?
>What would you prefer,
reality isn't what you prefer it to be, all of this existed long before any of us, you don't then get to come along and decide how it is, reality is what it is, you don't get a choice

>>936462143
i want God to come fix this stupid shit and make this world worth living in but i know that's not going to happen because God is a pussy who bit off more than he could chew

>>936462251
>under what premise is that not a possibility
Nothing means nothing - you can't have anything and that includes goodness.
>reality isn't what you prefer it to be
Uh, yeah. But you say "God is a faggot for [doing this]" so I'm asking what you would prefer. Because if you can call someone a faggot for doing X that implies there is a NON-faggot option Y.

>>936462347
>come fix this stupid shit and make this world worth living in
There's no point in life if God just does everything for us. That would be taking away free will.

>>936462393
>That would be taking away free will
who fucking gives a shit

>>936462453
You won't enjoy a life where you have no choice. Have you heard of the Experience Machine thought experiment? A life of pure pleasure/good things will cease to feel good or pleasurable because to have "good" things you must have experience of "bad" things with which to compare them.

>>936462353
>you can't have anything and that includes goodness
"goodness" is completely subjective, it doesn't objectively exist out in the universe
humans decide what is good and bad, and it isn't universal, it varies by culture and by person

>>936462493
horse shit

>>936462493
you're being stupid on purpose

>>936455439 (OP)
>Gives OP a brain
>OP uses it to take the crappiest fanfic about Him around literal
What the fuck was OPs problem?????

>>936462518
>"goodness" is completely subjective
Correct. And if the universe is "nothing" then there is no subject to measure goodness. You say yourself that humans decide good and bad. Humans don't exist in nothingness.
>>936462538
>>936462560
You could elaborate, if you'd like.

>>936462599
we don't need bad things to know good things

>>936462599
>Humans don't exist in nothingness.
obviously, we are here
what are you even arguing?

>>936462143
>False dichotomy followed by begging the question
Your handlers have trained you well

>>936462493
>A life of pure pleasure/good things will cease to feel good or pleasurable because to have "good" things you must have experience of "bad" things with which to compare them
Not everyone's brain is as smooth as yours

>>936455439 (OP)
I think the genesis story pales in comparison to Job for god acting like a petty 12 year old girl with BPD..

>God brags to Satan about Job because Job loves him so much.
>Satan "he only loves you because he has so much stuff."
>God: "Nuh uh! Look"
>God kills his family. Destroys his farm. Takes everything from him. Gives him diseases.
>Job "the lord giveth and the lord taketh away"
>God to Satan "SEEEEE!?"

>>936462645
How do you know if something is good, if you have no comparison? If everything is the same, how do you know it's good? You need different experiences to compare and then judge what is "good" and what is "bad".
>>936462650
Someone, or you (who knows) said they disapproved of God making this world. I said the alternative was nothingness. I said that the problem with nothingness is that we then cannot have any goodness. To which I got the vague reply "under what premise is that not a possibility?" so I explained why "nothingness" cannot hold any good. That is what I am arguing.
>>936462686
>>936462651
Again, you can elaborate.

>>936462747
Job is a goldmine of christcuck retardation, iirc it also has verses about flat earth/firmament

>>936462493
>A life of pure pleasure/good things will cease to feel good or pleasurable
how can you know that for sure?
and how does that stop those things from being good? if your entire life was having everything provided for you and you had no hardships, that would still be all positive and good, regardless how what you had to compare it against

>>936462755
See
>>936462651
Your argument's premises are fallacious

>>936462755
why do we need "goodness" in the first place, who cares

>>936462645
>A man knows he is naked so he makes some clothes.

>>936462755
> I said the alternative was nothingness
you first have to prove that the universe requires a god to create it, which you can't do
>I said that the problem with nothingness is that we then cannot have any goodness.
the fuck does nothingness have to do with goodness? goodness isn't a requirement of anything, it has nothing to do with anything, it's irrelevant

>>936462686
>>936462645

I mean other guy came off entirely on the wrong foot, but he isnt wrong, and this isnt even a strange or uncommon concept.. all things are relative. Even Beavis and Butthead had an episode about this very universally understood old concept.. There has to be contrast. There is no good if you dont know what's bad. As a most basic example, next time you get a particularly bad cold just look how much to crave and long for just feeling ok, something you normally take for granted.
And it gets a lot more complex and nuanced than that.

>>936462816
>and how does that stop those things from being good
Because 'good' in the antithesis of 'evil'. In a rather extreme example, if you had the exact same day every day, how could you judge it to be good? How do you know anything to be good at all? Because you know what is evil, or at least, "not good".
Perhaps you can give me an example of something "good" in your opinion and then explain to me WHY it is good without relating it to a "not good" experience. I.e. why is it "good" to save someone's life?
>>936462843
If that's what you think, then fair enough. Then there should be no existence at all.
>>936462840
I will just ask you to elaborate again. Using argumentation terms and naming fallacies does not make me magically understand your meaning.
>>936462876
>universe requires a god to create it, which you can't do
I suppose, but our own powers of reasoning cannot explain existence which suggests something greater than us is responsible for creation. Whether you consider that God or something else is another matter. If you want to argue that we just "haven't figured it out yet", then I won't argue against that, because I won't be able to change your mind.
>the fuck does nothingness have to do with goodness
Goodness cannot exist in nothingness. That's all.

>>936462893
the only thing you're pointing out is contrast, and being able to relatively compare how good something is
if you removed all bad things, the good things are still good, they don't suddenly become not good because you have nothing to compare them to, they are still beneficial regardless, they don't become neutral or bad in the absence of the bad things that were removed

>>936463057
Your perception is everything. There is no actual objective good or bad. Only your experience.

>>936463040
>how could you judge it to be good?
were you injured? were you fed? did you die? etc.
if nothing harmed you and your needs were met then it was good, how are you not understanding this?
>why is it "good" to save someone's life?
because people generally want to stay alive, so ensuring they still live is considered good

>>936463057
>the good things are still good
>they are still beneficial regardless
So if someone was only allowed to watch the best movies and eat the best food we know, they wouldn't begin making comparisons, having preferences and deciding which of them are good among the others?
If everyone was incredibly healthy, would there not still be those who are more healthy and therefore better?

>>936463040
>I suppose, but our own powers of reasoning cannot explain existence
why can't it?
>which suggests something greater than us is responsible for creation.
no it doesn't, your inability to explain something doesn't suggest a god did it
>Whether you consider that God or something else is another matter.
you can't just hand-waive that away, that something else could very well be natural processes of physics we don't yet know, but doesn't involve anything approaching something anyone would consider a god
>If you want to argue that we just "haven't figured it out yet", then I won't argue against that, because I won't be able to change your mind.
because you don't have any compelling arguments beyond wishful thinking and "I don't know, therefore god"

>>936463126
>if nothing harmed you and your needs were met then it was
Exactly. But it is possible for people to be harmed and not have their needs met. That is a lack of good, which can be used as a comparison to demonstrate what IS good.
Those things are good, you say, because people "want" them. People "wanting" them means it is possible not to have it.
In this way, "good" things are still a matter of comparison to other experiences.

>>936463187
>would there not still be those who are more healthy and therefore better?
someone else doing better in life doesn't equate to you not also doing well in life
if everyone is on the positive scale of health then they are all doing well
something on the "bad" scale would indicate they suffer from some illness, something that is harming them, shortening their lifespan unnaturally, like a cancer of some kind, or physical injury

>>936463223
>why can't it?
We understand the world through cause and effect, which is logically unsound when it comes to the creation of the universe. We don't know the first "cause". Perhaps we will come to understand it one day, but it appears that it is contradictory to how all of our knowledge has been established.
>your inability to explain something doesn't suggest a god did it
The collective inability of humanity to explain something suggests something non-human can explain or justify it. It doesn't even have to be a God. Again I will grant that perhaps we simply haven't figured it out yet.
>that something else could very well be natural processes of physics we don't yet know
It could. I would argue that if we cannot understand it, there will be an existence that can. I can see that you believe we will figure it out eventually, and that's fine.
>I don't know, therefore god
I do not claim that. I have been focusing on talking about good and bad/why wouldn't God intervene/why has God put bad things in the world. It's not wishful thinking on my part to say there is a God. I have no interest in trying to convince you God exists. Not because I have no arguments, but because we clearly see the nature of God differently.
I don't mean this in a confrontational or argumentative way. I just don't see a point in discussing "is God real" here because it will not be a productive conversation.

>>936463316
>if everyone is on the positive scale of health
Positive cannot exist without negative.
>someone else doing better in life doesn't equate to you not also doing well in life
You are doing WORSE than them. There is a comparison made. All I am trying to establish is that something being good is always a relative judgement.

>>936463040
>If that's what you think, then fair enough. Then there should be no existence at all.
there could still be an existence, just not one based on the pretense of "goodness" (whatever that's supposed to mean)

>>936463493
>You are doing WORSE than them
yeah i mean, it's pretty fucking hard to consider yourself as having a good life when most other people are doing better than you

>>936463547
Broadly speaking, "goodness" really just refers to what people want to happen. From a religious perspective, it's what God wants.
If there is existence, then there will be something that has SOME kind of want. Unless, I suppose, it's all just a bunch of rocks. I guess the point is that people want to experience good things, so generally we want existence to stick around.

>>936463457
> which is logically unsound when it comes to the creation of the universe
how is it unsound only in this specific domain?
>The collective inability of humanity to explain something suggests something non-human can explain or justify it.
do you know how many countless times throughout human history we didn't know how something worked and attributed it to gods, only to then figure it out and realize it was perfectly explainable? how many times does this need to happen before you think maybe it can be explained we just haven't gotten there yet?
>I do not claim that.
it certainly seems like you do
> I just don't see a point in discussing "is God real" here because it will not be a productive conversation.
but the entire line of reasoning depends on it, it changes everything
if there is a god dictating all of this, it means there is malicious intent
if there aren't any gods, then it's just an uncaring universe and there is no objective good or bad, just things that happen and we interpret it from our selfish perspective of wanting to avoid death and harm

>>936463493
>Positive cannot exist without negative.
it absolutely can, what do you mean?
>You are doing WORSE than them
by comparison maybe, but that doesn't somehow mean you are now harmed, or are going to die because someone else is doing slightly better
I don't sustain an injury because someone else eats more healthy food than I do
>All I am trying to establish is that something being good is always a relative judgement.
sure, but that does not in turn make the things you compare them to bad, both can be good, you can compare 2 positive things, and one may not even be necessarily better or worse than the other, just different

>>936463594
>it's pretty fucking hard to consider yourself as having a good life when most other people are doing better than you
I sincerely hope this is heavy sarcasm

>>936463632
>how is it unsound only in this specific domain
If we understand everything by cause and effect, then what is the first cause? If nothing existed at the start, how could anything have come to be? Our current model of logic does not work with this problem.
>how many countless times throughout human history we didn't know how something worked and attributed it to gods
I grant that. As I said, our current model of understanding the world cannot explain this first cause and so perhaps if we discover some other way of understanding the world that does not rely on cause-effect we could explain it. I already said that. I simply don't believe that will happen.
>it certainly seems like you do
My belief in God is not based on me saying "lol idk". Unfortunately, life is more complex than that.
>the entire line of reasoning depends on it
No, because all I intend to discuss here is whether God should interevene in our lives or remove bad things for us.
>if there is a god dictating all of this, it means there is malicious intent
It will not be malicious. Bad things happen, yes, but without them there is no capacity for good. It is a necessary evil.
>if there aren't any gods, then it's just an uncaring universe and there is no objective good or bad
I might agree, but then one could argue that there are ways of measuring goodness in terms of unverisal wants (i.e. utalitarianism).

>>936463731
why would it be sarcasm?

>>936463867
because you're mentally ill if you constantly compare yourself to how well you perceive others are doing to decide if your life is good or not and if your needs are being met

>>936463712
>it absolutely can, what do you mean?
You said "scale" yourself. As in a measurement. As in there is such a thing as "not" positive.
Can you explain to me what positive is without mentioning negative?
>I don't sustain an injury
You are using an injury as an example because it is a possible example. If there was no such thing as injury, there would be a new "worst" experience and that might just be not being as fit and healthy as other people.
>both can be good
One will be "more" good than the other. People will have a preference for which they want to happen. The less desired one will cease to be "good", because no one will want it in favour of the better experience.

>>936463918
i can't help it....was that god's doing as well?

>>936463956
you dropped your fedora, bro

>>936464001
just admit it dude, god sucks nigger cock and needs to be fired from his position for negligence

>>936463918
>child dying of cancer while all the other kids are healthy and loving life
>wishes he was healthy like them
>bro stop comparing yourself to how well you perceive others are doing what you are mentally ill??

>>936464092
annnd he brought up nigger dick
can't help yourself, can you?

>>936463919
>As in there is such a thing as "not" positive.
what? you can have a scale that's only positive, what are you talking about? you can have any kind of scale you want
> If there was no such thing as injury, there would be a new "worst" experience and that might just be not being as fit and healthy as other people.
that doesn't equate to bad, that's the thing you keep getting hung up on
if you make $1M/yr and I make $900k/yr, I'm not doing bad because by comparison I'm making less, we're both doing well, there isn't only 1 single measure of good, and if no one hits that threshold, or if everyone isn't at the exact same level, that somehow translates to now bad
>One will be "more" good than the other.
so?
>People will have a preference for which they want to happen. The less desired one will cease to be "good", because no one will want it in favour of the better experience.
so are we now re-introducing that bad exists and not everything is good? you seem to be changing what the parameters are

>>936464126
are you retarded? god sucks and so do you

>>936455439 (OP)
>God creates paradise and give us free will
>”You can eat anything you want except this one tree.”
>Eve just HAS to eat from that tree because some slimy greaseball told her to
>Millennia later feminine brained retards mad at God

>>936463956
>was that god's doing as well?
no, it was your doing, stop comparing yourself to everyone else, as long as you have your basic needs met you're doing fine
if that isn't the case then you need to work harder until that is the case

>>936463919
>The less desired one will cease to be "good", because no one will want it in favour of the better experience
yeah, just like people won't want anything to do with someone whose experience is worse than everyone else's....that person will be ostracized completely, through no fault of their own. what a great guy God must be, right?

>>936464132
>you can have a scale that's only positive
But to measure how positive something is, that suggests there can be a lack of positivity.
>I'm not doing bad because by comparison I'm making less, we're both doing well
You can only say you're both doing well because you are comparing to experience of making literally no money at all. You are still comparing these facts to other experiences. My point is is that if $900k/yr was the lowest income possible, that would become a "bad" income purely by comparison.
>so?
>re-introducing that bad exists and not everything is good
Not everything can be good. Good suggests a possibility of more than one outcome. The preferred outcome is "good". The not-preferred outcome is "bad", or at least "not good".
What is "good", in your opinion? Something that is beneficial? To benefit implies the possibility that you cannot benefit or there is something you may miss. An opposite.

>>936464101
>child dying of cancer
he isn't doing good now is he? how is having cancer on the positive scale?

>>936464268
It's not the role of God to make everything perfect and happy for us. Even if he made things better in some ways, we would then complain of the next "bad" thing until we demanded he fix everything. Thus defeating the point of our lives.

>>936464487
>Thus defeating the point of our lives
the point of my life has already been defeated so God can jump into a wood chipper for all i care

>>936464464
It's relative. Let's take a "more positive" example.
>World where no one gets sick or anything
>Almost everyone lives to at least 100 years old and manages to be healthy this whole time
>Someone dies at 95, everyone thinks this is a complete tragedy because 100 is the expected age to live to
But to us and our reality, that age of 95 is pretty reasonable. It doesn't have to be about cancer, the fact is is that we will have to compare our lives to others to gauge the quality of our own life, to some extent. We can't help it. It's not "mentally ill".

>>936464596
>the point of my life has already been defeated
Wanna talk about it, buddy? Can't be that bad if you have time to kill arguing a bunch of nonsense with the rest of us on 4chinz.

>>936464425
>But to measure how positive something is
we're not talking about magnitude, only if it's positive or not, "how positive" it is is irrelevant here
>You can only say you're both doing well because you are comparing to experience of making literally no money at all.
no, I can say I'm doing well because I have enough money to meet all of my needs, it doesn't matter if someone else makes more or less
>that would become a "bad" income purely by comparison.
no it wouldn't, that reasoning makes no sense, you don't seem to understand what good and bad even mean in this context. you seem to think bad means "less good" compared to something else, when that isn't the case
>Not everything can be good.
it can in this hypothetical where we said "if no bad exists" and everything is on the positive scale
> The preferred outcome is "good".
there need not be a single good outcome, and there can be varying degrees of good, it's not all or nothing, and one thing being slightly less "good" than something else isn't now the opposite of good

>>936455738
Umm....note well that before Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge, they had no conception of good or bad - and hence would not yet understand that snakes are bad - and moreover would not have yet understood that not following God's instruction was bad.

And really: what kind of Godly "paradise" is it that includes dangerous snakes and poisonous fruit?

>>936464637
>only if it's positive or not
Or NOT. Meaning it is possible NOT to be positive. Can you define positivity without using negativity?
>because I have enough money to meet all of my needs
Meaning it is possible NOT to meet all of your needs.
>when that isn't the case
Then explain what "good" and "bad" are.
>it can in this hypothetical where we said "if no bad exists" and everything is on the positive scale
"Bad" does not cease to exist because of a better quality of life. The metrics for what is considered "bad" will simply change.
>there need not be a single good outcome, and there can be varying degrees of good
There can be varying degrees of good, yes. But as I have said not EVERYTHING can be good.

Please tell me what you think "good" and "bad" mean. You clearly have a different idea and without knowing it, we won't get anywhere.

>>936464888
I think you lost the plot somewhere along the way, and we're going in circles
you think that there can be no good without bad, and can't even entertain a hypothetical where all bad is removed, or even agree on what bad is in the first place, this is going nowhere

>>936465120
>this is going nowhere
Yeah, so tell me what you believe "good" and "bad" to be.
>can't even entertain a hypothetical where all bad is removed
Because by my definitions, it's not possible. So please, present your own.
I say what "good" is what people "want" to happen universally. If people can "want" anything, that implies there is something they "don't want" to happen - that would be "bad". What about you?

>>936465372
i want God to choke on a battery and die, is that bad at all?

>>936465372
>Because by my definitions, it's not possible.
because you have an invalid definition of bad, where it's only a comparison to something else and defined as "less good"
that's not what bad is
>that implies there is something they "don't want" to happen - that would be "bad".
do you know what a hypothetical is? can you entertain the thought of what if you didn't eat lunch today?

this has honestly been my contention with religion, especially given there are so many
it all just reads like a giant shit test

>>936465644
>that's not what bad is
Then give me your definition already.
>can you entertain the thought of what if you didn't eat lunch today?
You don't need to resort to stale attacks to fit in here. Just give me your definition so we can continue the discussion. You only think I don't understand what a hypothetical is because I didn't entertain in a way that agrees with your thinking.
So...give me your definition of good and bad and we can figure out why we're not understanding each other.

no such thing as good/bad

only the deserving people should get to have good things, everyone else should be made to suffer

>>936458944
When I know a child is going to do something it shouldn't, I know it's because it lacks understanding of why it should not do that thing. Childs don't have the foresight adults have.
But even an adult would be challenged to see why eating some fruit would be evil if it is never explained to them.
And if such behaviour is a result of lacking intelligence, foresight or wisdom, then why didn't God equip us with stronger mental capabilities to figure things out? If you say "You aquire wisdom by experince and learning, it is something you get from growth, it cannot just be given to you" then you say that god is punishing a childlike mind for something they didn't have the opportunity of knowing better. From Adam and eve's perspektive, it could as well have been a coin toss wether to trust God or the snake. Had she choosen to not eat the fruit, it would have been the right decision made purely by accident, not by insight. That is why christian understanding of morality is so stupid.

>>936467510
You took the story way too literally, it seems.
The basic point is that we CHOOSE to have free will (ate the apple). In that, we are sent out from paradise (where we had no free will) and have to make good choices on our own. Because we now can distinguish between good and evil, we have the power in humanity to create good things and make good choices.
It's not about "lol you ate this fruit without knowing what would happen". It's "God, your provider and giver of life told you NOT to do this and you did it anyway. Here are the consequences of your actions".

>>936467997
but who cares what God wants? nigger needs to fuck off

>>936455439 (OP)
Would you rather pay people to hang around you or have them choose to hang around you out of their own free will?
If you're honest in the slightest, you'd admit to want them to choose hanging around you out of their own free will.
That's the reason why free will was given. Love that is coerced is meaningless. If Eve chose to fuck up, that isn't God's fault. It is the snake and the woman's fault.

>>936469277
nah, it's god's fault, completely

>>936455772
>>936455951
Hell was never outrightly mentioned in the bible until the English translation came around, which also only mentions satan and the false prophet to be the only ones to spend their eternity there. Besides, hell is mainly used as a threat by controlling actors in the faith to control other Christians as well as people who didn't take the time to understand what is meant or fish for gotchas.

>>936469336
I accept your surrender.

>>936469576
god made everything, including the possibility of bad things happening in the first place
therefore if something bad happens, that's what god wanted

>>936461867
>God is a complete faggot for even creating this shit world in the first place
First of all, you don't even know what planet you're on, so why should anyone take you seriously?

Bottom line: This planet is Bozrah, not Earth. Read this post...

https://x.com/elitefeat/status/1799553063390154856
============================
This planet is not Earth. It is Bozrah.

Earth is another planet about 75,000 light years from here, whereas this planet is merely an impostor planet that calls itself "Earth." Big difference. And trust me, I know how to count to 10 seconds, ACCURATELY. What used to be 10.00 seconds (for me) is now a whopping 15.00 seconds! If you don't believe me, see Matthew 24:22 and Revelation 8:12. For the natives, though, the speed of time here has always been the same.

If you are a Bozrah native, you are in serious trouble. The people of this planet must acknowledge that Bozrah is not Earth and that Jesus is coming to destroy it. Otherwise, don't expect God to save you.
============================

And for the sake of clarity, let me say this: The event in which Jesus destroys this planet is called "the day of vengeance." There will be no 7-year Tribulation or Antichrist here—because this planet isn't Earth. It's Bozrah.

>>936469760
what a retard

>>936469747
that's like blaming your gf's parents for her cheating on you because they created her.
At best that's an admission of your own powerlessness, at worst its an admission that you're retarded.

>>936464605
Tragedy doesn't exist in a pure good world.
>He died 5 years before everyone else dies, what does that mean.
Nothing, lets celebrate his life anyways with a 5 year party!

>>936455439 (OP)
Judaism and Christianity is a whole lot of horseshit to try to explain something about human behavior that doesn't make sense. The creator of this world is evil and humans are its evil reflection.

my house (the university) is whites only -

your house (the frats/sorors) have niggers who think of anal

you're sicking me

>>936472152
i'm a white dude who thinks of anal

>>936464464
Cancer is an invitation home.
We all die.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUQS5Sq8NnA&list=RDDUQS5Sq8NnA&start_radio=1

I swear to God bro. This fucking MS pain is killing me. Get this stupid fucking God off of me bro. Impostor evil scumfuck son of a bitch

https://youtu.be/DUQS5Sq8NnA

>>936462143
Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

I was doing okay last night and then I had a 15 minute meeting that I had to leave the house for, and for 9 and a half hours now I've been in pain with pain in the eyes and sinus pressure, and head and neck tension and chest muscle tension, unable to breathe properly. If I walk too far my knees hurt and swell up. It is like being tortured

It is over.

Although he had done no violence
and had said nothing deceptive,
10 yet it pleased Adonai to crush him with illness,
to see if he would present himself as a guilt offering.
If he does, he will see his offspring;
and he will prolong his days;
and at his hand Adonai’s desire
will be accomplished.
11 After this ordeal, he will see satisfaction.
“By his knowing [pain and sacrifice],
my righteous servant makes many righteous;
it is for their sins that he suffers.

Evil God and humans are its evil reflection

>In certain Gnostic interpretations, particularly in Sethian and Ophite systems, the Demiurge, often identified as Yaldabaoth, is portrayed as the creator of the material world and a flawed, malevolent entity. This Demiurge, considered separate from the true, transcendent God, is seen as envious of humanity and seeks to trap souls within the physical realm. According to these Gnostic views, Jesus, as a divine figure, came to reveal the truth about the flawed nature of the Demiurge's creation and to liberate souls from it. The Demiurge, perceiving this as a threat to his dominion, had Jesus crucified.

The Emperor of Mankind, often referred to by His faithful as the "God-Emperor," the "Master of Mankind," or simply "the Emperor," and who sometimes referred to Himself as "Revelation," known to the forces of Chaos as the False Emperor or the Corpse Emperor, is the immortal Perpetual and psyker who serves as the reigning monarch of the Imperium of Man, and is described by the Imperial Ecclesiarchy and the Imperial Cult as the father, guardian and god of Humanity.

The Chaos Gods and the Daemons of the Warp refer to Him as "the Anathema" for He is the greatest embodiment of universal order in the galaxy today and the most potent foe of Chaos in existence. He was, and remains, the most powerful Human psyker to have ever been born.

I wish I could read my Warhammer books but my eyes hurt. I can still watch movies at least half the time and I've been watching Stallone movies for better or worse. Also Layer Cake is a great movie, and so is TimeCop. Check them out

>>936475272
I'll let you into a dirty secret: /v/ isn't a real board.

>>936476435
Well, the outside world messes my body up so I'm stuck here until I get to a doctor and get a steroid

>>936476435
https://youtu.be/xmPocA7Beo0?t=128

>>936474613
>Has Anyone Really Been Far Even as Decided to Use Even Go Want to do Look More Like?

Bro what